California Propositions Thread

[cannonia]

Compliance with the VRA is required?

Ugh. In that case, count two new votes against Prop 11.

I'm not a fan myself, but are you saying the state should ignore federal law?

The initiative should state that race, ethnicity, language, age, citizenship, or registration status of residents should not be taken into account when drawing districts.  Draw reasonable boundaries and let someone else take the state to federal court for violating the VRA.  No reasonable person would want to subject 14 of his fellow Californians to the creepiness of having to account for racial voting patterns.

But the worst part of the initiative is leaving congressional redistricting in the hands of the legislature.  Almost half of the current congressional delegation previously served in the legislature.  You have to complex process to choose the commission, with all kinds of restrictions on who may be a member so as to avoid even the whiff of political influence, and then leave congressional redistricting in the hands of body that is too corrupt to draw legislative district boundaries.

Are you sure congressional redistricting is left to the legislature? If so it would make me 10 times more likely to vote for it. I would want fair congressional redistricting as well only if the rest of the country did it as well. I do think better districts need to be created in California but I am not sure this is the answer. The prop is hopelessly confusing. 8 random citizens, who have voted in 2 of last 3 general elections, are selected and then they select 6 more or something. Also no relatives of politicians or lobbyists are allowed. It sounds great on paper maybe but how are they going to implement it. Oh well.

I think critics are letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.  The proposition only applies to state legislative districts, and it is a complicated process for picking the commission, but there's no downside to passing the proposition.  On the other hand, there won't likely be any reform if this one fails like the last one.

[cannonia]

The prop does not apply to congressional redistricting. Trying to create competitive districts in Calif at present however, is a rather futile exercise. Folks of different political persuasions seem to prefer not to live near each other in California.

Maybe in SoCal, but the Sacramento suburbs are a real mixed bag.  Look at Elk Grove, Rancho Cordova, North Highlands, Arden-Arcade, Rosemont and the Pocket area for examples.  Elsewhere in the Central Valley and even the East Bay there are a lot of close areas.

[Хahar 🤔]

Compliance with the VRA is required?

Ugh. In that case, count two new votes against Prop 11.

I'm not a fan myself, but are you saying the state should ignore federal law?

It only aplies to congressional districts. And for those, yes, nullification seems just fine.

The prop does not apply to congressional redistricting. Trying to create competitive districts in Calif at present however, is a rather futile exercise. Folks of different political persuasions seem to prefer not to live near each other in California.

That is because competitiveness is not in itself a virtue; with single-member districts, it produces massive swings in seats on small swings in the popular vote.

[Torie]

Compliance with the VRA is required?

Ugh. In that case, count two new votes against Prop 11.

I'm not a fan myself, but are you saying the state should ignore federal law?

It only aplies to congressional districts. And for those, yes, nullification seems just fine.

The prop does not apply to congressional redistricting. Trying to create competitive districts in Calif at present however, is a rather futile exercise. Folks of different political persuasions seem to prefer not to live near each other in California.

That is because competitiveness is not in itself a virtue; with single-member districts, it produces massive swings in seats on small swings in the popular vote.

 

It won't in Cali, absent something lines out-of-this-world erose.

[Хahar 🤔]

Compliance with the VRA is required?

Ugh. In that case, count two new votes against Prop 11.

I'm not a fan myself, but are you saying the state should ignore federal law?

It only aplies to congressional districts. And for those, yes, nullification seems just fine.

The prop does not apply to congressional redistricting. Trying to create competitive districts in Calif at present however, is a rather futile exercise. Folks of different political persuasions seem to prefer not to live near each other in California.

That is because competitiveness is not in itself a virtue; with single-member districts, it produces massive swings in seats on small swings in the popular vote.

 

It won't in Cali, absent something lines out-of-this-world erose.

If each district is precisely 50-50, then a 1% swing one way would give the candidate getting the swing each and every seat.

That it wouldn't happen here I don't disagree with, but that's more because of the impossibility of drawing all districts to be fully competitive than anything else.

[cannonia]

Compliance with the VRA is required?

Ugh. In that case, count two new votes against Prop 11.

I'm not a fan myself, but are you saying the state should ignore federal law?

It only aplies to congressional districts. And for those, yes, nullification seems just fine.

No, see for example Garza vs. County of Los Angeles.  Mind you, the 9th Circuit is talking about county supervisorial districts.  Federal courts have also ruled on the validity of state legislative districts.

Nullification is a dead doctrine.  If the redistricting plan violates federal laws (whatever their merits), then it will be tossed out.  VRA compliance is not a defect in the proposition; it's a benefit that the commission will have proper legal assistance in the process.

[Lunar]

I think it's disgusting that the citizens are voting on most [any?] of these things.  Since when is 51% of the masses capable of making smart policy decisions?  No one who votes is even going to read the entire bill.

The entire point of representative democracy is to hire professionals who can get down and dirty with the law and treat it professionally.  Propositions are a way to surrender every single individual law to digestable 30-second soundbytes funded by special interests.

I support 1a because politicians need a electorate-given mandate to take such a big decision and when I visit California in 10 years it'd be nice to have some good transportation.  Arnold supports it haha.

I'll probably have a long rant about how Prop 13 ruined California's economy permanently and why propositions are evil after the elections, but it's coming.

[Meeker]

I think it's disgusting that the citizens are voting on most [any?] of these things.  Since when is 51% of the masses capable of making smart policy decisions?  No one who votes is even going to read the entire bill.

The entire point of representative democracy is to hire professionals who can get down and dirty with the law and treat it professionally.  Propositions are a way to surrender every single individual law to digestable 30-second soundbytes funded by special interests.

I support 1a because politicians need a electorate-given mandate to take such a big decision and when I visit California in 10 years it'd be nice to have some good transportation.  Arnold supports it haha.

I'll probably have a long rant about how Prop 13 ruined California's economy permanently and why propositions are evil after the elections, but it's coming.

Are you sure you're a Libertarian? Or even a libertarian?

[Verily]

Compliance with the VRA is required?

Ugh. In that case, count two new votes against Prop 11.

I'm not a fan myself, but are you saying the state should ignore federal law?

The initiative should state that race, ethnicity, language, age, citizenship, or registration status of residents should not be taken into account when drawing districts.  Draw reasonable boundaries and let someone else take the state to federal court for violating the VRA.  No reasonable person would want to subject 14 of his fellow Californians to the creepiness of having to account for racial voting patterns.

But the worst part of the initiative is leaving congressional redistricting in the hands of the legislature.  Almost half of the current congressional delegation previously served in the legislature.  You have to complex process to choose the commission, with all kinds of restrictions on who may be a member so as to avoid even the whiff of political influence, and then leave congressional redistricting in the hands of body that is too corrupt to draw legislative district boundaries.

Are you sure congressional redistricting is left to the legislature? If so it would make me 10 times more likely to vote for it. I would want fair congressional redistricting as well only if the rest of the country did it as well. I do think better districts need to be created in California but I am not sure this is the answer. The prop is hopelessly confusing. 8 random citizens, who have voted in 2 of last 3 general elections, are selected and then they select 6 more or something. Also no relatives of politicians or lobbyists are allowed. It sounds great on paper maybe but how are they going to implement it. Oh well.

FWIW, "fair" districting in California wouldn't radically change the House delegation's composition anyway. It would doom some incumbents, both Democrats and Republicans (Loretta Sanchez maybe most notably), and create more year-to-year turnover, but the current delegation is pretty representative of what a fair system would give. California is not a small state like Iowa where one party could conceivably win most of the seats with only just over half the vote in a fair system.

I think it's disgusting that the citizens are voting on most [any?] of these things.  Since when is 51% of the masses capable of making smart policy decisions?  No one who votes is even going to read the entire bill.

The entire point of representative democracy is to hire professionals who can get down and dirty with the law and treat it professionally.  Propositions are a way to surrender every single individual law to digestable 30-second soundbytes funded by special interests.

I support 1a because politicians need a electorate-given mandate to take such a big decision and when I visit California in 10 years it'd be nice to have some good transportation.  Arnold supports it haha.

I'll probably have a long rant about how Prop 13 ruined California's economy permanently and why propositions are evil after the elections, but it's coming.

Are you sure you're a Libertarian? Or even a libertarian?

Part of being a Libertarian is assuming the masses are stupid since they don't support your ideology. Of course, he's also right. Referenda are disgusting perversions which should be banned.

[Lunar]

I think it's disgusting that the citizens are voting on most [any?] of these things.  Since when is 51% of the masses capable of making smart policy decisions?  No one who votes is even going to read the entire bill.

The entire point of representative democracy is to hire professionals who can get down and dirty with the law and treat it professionally.  Propositions are a way to surrender every single individual law to digestable 30-second soundbytes funded by special interests.

I support 1a because politicians need a electorate-given mandate to take such a big decision and when I visit California in 10 years it'd be nice to have some good transportation.  Arnold supports it haha.

I'll probably have a long rant about how Prop 13 ruined California's economy permanently and why propositions are evil after the elections, but it's coming.

Are you sure you're a Libertarian? Or even a libertarian?

No, I think representative democracy is better than direct democracy.

Propositions are great for things that politicians won't do themselves, notably restrict their own salaries and increase transparency.

But otherwise?

There are few people in the world, and I doubt anyone in the CA State Legislature, that understands how our own budget system works.  They once had a model sending dollars to all sides of the room just to help them understand it.  Every frickin' year, some special interest with cute-sounding language restricts the legislature from doing their jobs in another fashion.  Like, lots of props require that X (40%) percent of the budget has to be spent on X issue voters like (education).  You're left with 0 flexibility to meet rising issues and a budget that no one understands.

And of course, Prop 13 is the worst law ever implemented in CA history (outside of like the racist immigration ones) and the reason why schools are so underfunded and California is, what, 49th in education?  Warren Buffet pays more on his trailer park or some small property (I forget) in Oklahoma than he does on a mansion in California, simply because California only raises property taxes a single time, after the property is sold, and these property taxes are how schools are funded.  Walmarts and other huge-type companies never have to pay increased property tax rates from when they bought their lots decades and decades ago.  The voters are too stupid to realize this and found the worst solution ever to a real problem (Senior citizens being kicked out of their homes because they are on a fixed income and taxes keep increasing).

[cannonia]

Since at least the days of Willie Brown, the Legislature has been a top-down affair in which the leadership has absolute control of the agenda.  I'm sure you haven't forgotten the incident a month or so back where the Assemblywoman's office was transferred outside of the Capitol building because she had the temerity to withhold her vote on the budget until her district's water needs were addressed.  The State Legislature is essentially a party organ, leaving no room for the professionalism (or really even independent thought) on the part of the members.

Also, I realize you're engaging in hyperbole regarding the budget, but I have to point out that the man most well-regarded for his knowledge of the state budget is none other than your favorite Republican state-senator-turned-congressional-candidate.

And you do realize the budget and the economy are different, right?  Anyway, I agree that Prop 13 is bad policy, but I certainly think it's better than no restriction on increasing property taxes.

[jimrtex]

The prop does not apply to congressional redistricting. Trying to create competitive districts in Calif at present however, is a rather futile exercise. Folks of different political persuasions seem to prefer not to live near each other in California.

It is a feature that it does not set as an objective to create competitive districts.  When you start out with the result and work backwards you get gerrymandered districts.  It doesn't matter if your goal is to create a district to re-elect Billy Joe Bodangle; or pack and crack voters of one party to maximize the representative of the other; or to get just enough green people in a district so that they can elect a green person; but not waste any of the green people, since they can be used in another district to help the purple people to outvote the orange people; or to create competitive districts.

Look what happened in Arizona where they created an independent commission, and set out a process that suggested that the districts would be compact, etc. but also claimed that it would make the races more competitive.  The commission drew its districts and ended up in court.  The state of Arizona didn't defend the plan, and the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that the citizens in passing the initiative had really wanted competitive seats, even if it meant pairing heavily Republican areas in Phoenix strung together with heavily Democrat areas in Tucson, etc.  Look at the Arizona districts and realized that they were drawn by an independent commission and adjusted by the courts.

[jimrtex]

Compliance with the VRA is required?

Ugh. In that case, count two new votes against Prop 11.

I'm not a fan myself, but are you saying the state should ignore federal law?

The initiative should state that race, ethnicity, language, age, citizenship, or registration status of residents should not be taken into account when drawing districts.  Draw reasonable boundaries and let someone else take the state to federal court for violating the VRA.  No reasonable person would want to subject 14 of his fellow Californians to the creepiness of having to account for racial voting patterns.

But the worst part of the initiative is leaving congressional redistricting in the hands of the legislature.  Almost half of the current congressional delegation previously served in the legislature.  You have to complex process to choose the commission, with all kinds of restrictions on who may be a member so as to avoid even the whiff of political influence, and then leave congressional redistricting in the hands of body that is too corrupt to draw legislative district boundaries.

Are you sure congressional redistricting is left to the legislature? If so it would make me 10 times more likely to vote for it. I would want fair congressional redistricting as well only if the rest of the country did it as well. I do think better districts need to be created in California but I am not sure this is the answer. The prop is hopelessly confusing. 8 random citizens, who have voted in 2 of last 3 general elections, are selected and then they select 6 more or something. Also no relatives of politicians or lobbyists are allowed. It sounds great on paper maybe but how are they going to implement it. Oh well.

I think critics are letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.  The proposition only applies to state legislative districts, and it is a complicated process for picking the commission, but there's no downside to passing the proposition.  On the other hand, there won't likely be any reform if this one fails like the last one.

The proposition applies to congressional districts, legislative districts, and the state board of equalization.  It sets some rules for how the districts are to be drawn; but has the legislature draw the congressional districts; and the commission draw the legislative districts and the SBOE districts.

The preamble actually specifies Long Beach, Fresno, and San Jose as being split among bunches of districts, but (at least to me) it appears that it is the congressional districts that are much worse in those areas.  The assembly districts really don't look that bad, and they clearly paid a lot of attention to city boundaries.  Legislators may actually be more responsible when drawing their own districts because they have to live in the districts, and they can actually identify with the neighborhoods and cities around them.

A small change in the number of US representatives may require massive changes in congressional districts.  If a state gains a seat, you have to create an entirely new district, from large chunks of existing districts (say 220,000 people from each of 3 districts).  Those 3 districts may have to then add 200,000 people from other districts and it ripples outward.  If a state losts a seat, it has to remove a district.  You either pick a victim and eviscerate the district, or you pick two representatives and stick them in the same district and let them battle it out.

But if redistricting is done on a regular basis, and the number of districts doesn't change, there may be bunch smaller shifts needed, and the district become more regular.

It simply doesn't make sense to split congressional and legislative district apart when they have the same problems with self-interested partisans drawing the districts.  And that makes me suspicious.  When it would have been simpler to include congressional districting, than to leave it out - why leave it out?  The proposal requires the commission and the legislature to coordinate their efforts, including holding joint hearings throughout the state.

[ag]

What a bunch of crap. Good, I am not a Californian

1. Would be tempted (I like rail), but what do the studies show on how many people would use it? Probably, the wrong moment to do it. Likely no, but could be pursuaded.

2. Don't know enough. Legislature should decide. No.

3. Legislature should decide. No.

4. No.

5. Legislature should decide. No.

6. Legislature, counties and municipalities should decide. No.

7.  Legislature should decide. No.

8. No.

9. Too broad. The last sentence is the only one I could support. No.

10. Legislature should decide. No.

11. Yes, urgently, yes. How come anyone (other than the legislators themselves) can have any doubts. Yes.

12. Legislature should decide. No.

So, of the 12 I think, I would think 1 is urgent, 1 would cater to my private preference, 3 I am clearly against and 7 should not be brought to the popular vote, ever.

[SPC]

Proposition 1A. Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train -- State of California (Bond Act)
NO, to any bond act.

Proposition 2. Standards for Confining Farm Animals -- State of California (Initiative Statute)
NO, this is just plain ridiculous.

Proposition 3. Children's Hospital Bond Act. Grant Program -- State of California (Initiative Statute)
NO, see 1A

Proposition 4. Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor's Pregnancy -- State of California (Initiative Constitutional Amendment - LOL)
NO, though I might consider switching.

Proposition 5. Nonviolent Drug Offenses, Sentencing, Parole and Rehabilitation -- State of California (Initiative Statute)
NO, I don't want to waste taxpayer money.

Proposition 6. Police and Law Enforcement Funding. Criminal Penalties and Laws -- State of California (Initiative Statute)
NO, see 5.

Proposition 7. Renewable Energy Generation -- State of California (Initiative Statute)
NO, if it were truly efficient, it wouldn't need to be propped up by the state.

Proposition 8. Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry -- State of California (Initiative Constitutional Amendment)
YES, though I might consider switching.

Proposition 9. Criminal Justice System. Victims' Rights. Parole -- State of California (Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute)
NO, this seems to be a Trojan Horse for prison funding.

Proposition 10. Alternative Fuel Vehicles and Renewable Energy. Bonds -- State of California (Initiative Statute)
NO, see 1A

Proposition 11. Redistricting -- State of California (Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute)
YES

Proposition 12. Veteran's Bond Act of 2008 -- State of California (Bond)
NO, see 1A

[platypeanArchcow]

Proposition 8. Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry -- State of California (Initiative Constitutional Amendment)
YES, though I might consider switching.

Why?  Care to elaborate?

[SPC]

Proposition 8. Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry -- State of California (Initiative Constitutional Amendment)
YES, though I might consider switching.

Why?  Care to elaborate?

I don't think that the government should be involved in marriage at all. Since this proposition says that the State of California will not recognize homosexual marriage, I support it. If the measure said that recognition of same-sex marriage shall be prohibited, I would be against it.

[Alcon]

Proposition 8. Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry -- State of California (Initiative Constitutional Amendment)
YES, though I might consider switching.

Why?  Care to elaborate?

I don't think that the government should be involved in marriage at all. Since this proposition says that the State of California will not recognize homosexual marriage, I support it. If the measure said that recognition of same-sex marriage shall be prohibited, I would be against it.

Don't you think that, if the status quo is maintained (as it will be), it should be an equal status quo?

This won't be a victory for what you're advocating, which I certainly agree with--it will just be a victory for those who oppose equal rights for gays.

[SPC]

Proposition 8. Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry -- State of California (Initiative Constitutional Amendment)
YES, though I might consider switching.

Why?  Care to elaborate?

I don't think that the government should be involved in marriage at all. Since this proposition says that the State of California will not recognize homosexual marriage, I support it. If the measure said that recognition of same-sex marriage shall be prohibited, I would be against it.

Don't you think that, if the status quo is maintained (as it will be), it should be an equal status quo?

This won't be a victory for what you're advocating, which I certainly agree with--it will just be a victory for those who oppose equal rights for gays.

If some people are going to be shot in the back of the head, wouldn't it be best for everyone to be shot in the back of the head? </sarcasm>. I should point out that I lean a little to the right on social issues.

[Alcon]

If some people are going to be shot in the back of the head, wouldn't it be best for everyone to be shot in the back of the head? </sarcasm>. I should point out that I lean a little to the right on social issues.

That analogy doesn't really make sense unless people desire equality in being shot in the head.

The better analogy is, if you think ice cream isn't healthy for your kids, but the neighbors' kids get it and your kids feel deprived, do you let them indulge?  Except replace ice cream with something related to civil rights equality.

I know you lean right on social issues, but this isn't a matter of left or right.  The argument I'm making is panideological.

[cannonia]

This won't be a victory for what you're advocating, which I certainly agree with--it will just be a victory for those who oppose equal rights for gays.

Or the idea of "group rights" in general.

[Alcon]

This won't be a victory for what you're advocating, which I certainly agree with--it will just be a victory for those who oppose equal rights for gays.

Or the idea of "group rights" in general.

So, say, you opposed public transportation being funded by the government.  You'd support an initiative to keep blacks off public transportation, just because it would be less ridership?  It would be more important to score points on a political issue that will never 'win' than to right a blatant form of societal discrimination?

I'm totally sympathetic to the "government out of marriage" view, I agree with it, but dude be practical.  You know no one is going to call this passing a win for our view.  You know exactly the kind of ideology that "wins" from this.

I have trouble believing that even the most adamant civil libertarian sees a vain stand for ideological purity as more important than righting society-approved bigotry.

[cannonia]

This won't be a victory for what you're advocating, which I certainly agree with--it will just be a victory for those who oppose equal rights for gays.

Or the idea of "group rights" in general.

So, say, you opposed public transportation being funded by the government.  You'd support an initiative to keep blacks off public transportation, just because it would be less ridership?  It would be more important to score points on a political issue that will never 'win' than to right a blatant form of societal discrimination?

Nope, never said anything like that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not of that view either.

[Alcon]

This won't be a victory for what you're advocating, which I certainly agree with--it will just be a victory for those who oppose equal rights for gays.

Or the idea of "group rights" in general.

So, say, you opposed public transportation being funded by the government.  You'd support an initiative to keep blacks off public transportation, just because it would be less ridership?  It would be more important to score points on a political issue that will never 'win' than to right a blatant form of societal discrimination?

Nope, never said anything like that.

Then you'll explain to me what the distinction is.  Why is the example I gave unacceptable, but denying equal marital rights to gays perfectly fine?  In both instances, you'd be doing the same thing:  revoking a right, and re-enforcing discrimination, to move toward an ideological goal that isn't on the horizon.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not of that view either.

I'm glad, but that doesn't take away my original point:  this is ineffective ideological purism vs. an actual move away from governmentally-enforced bigotry.  And a vote of "yes" gives that view, not ours, the victory.

[cannonia]

Then you'll explain to me what the distinction is.  Why is the example I gave unacceptable, but denying equal marital rights to gays perfectly fine?  In both instances, you'd be doing the same thing:  revoking a right, and re-enforcing discrimination, to move toward an ideological goal that isn't on the horizon.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not of that view either.

I'm glad, but that doesn't take away my original point:  this is ineffective ideological purism vs. an actual move away from governmentally-enforced bigotry.  And a vote of "yes" gives that view, not ours, the victory.

Marriage is an institution based on practical, not ideological concerns.  Your view of it as bigoted treats homosexuals as a group rather than as individuals.  I have the same concerns about this as about affirmative action.  Contrast those to laws that prohibit discrimination against an individual.